Tag Archives: creativity

Post navigation

Maybe Vox Day’s Time to Civilization concept would be best applied to tools and jewelry evolution?

I’d say coins but we literally invented numismatics. The Goddess Moneta’s temple was literally opposite the ancient mint. [Some sources claim in the Temple but it was all generally the same sacred space.]

In the Valley, it’s pride. They’re all terrified of saying I don’t know. It’s like an extension of school full of people-pleasers, it’s conditioned into them. It’s sad to see old men pretending to be teenagers. Their model of maturity (where they’re going) is defined by going backwards, it’s bizarre. Kids don’t know shit, it’s a pseudo-religious secular argument about purity from worldly corruption when children are only pushed in media because of pester power (how annoying they are) and having spare pocket money to burn (from their parents). They aren’t more creative, they’re more reckless (and very rarely it pays off, an availability heuristic), most studies for magnum opus peak at middle age because one is both learned and experienced.

Such a result is not surprising, given what we know about neurology. In adolescence, our brains are quite pliable and moldable, and are easily shaped by the experiences and tasks we pursue and work at every day. These experiences create well-worn pathways in our brains. In our mid-twenties, our brains start to “set,” and “excess” neural matter is pruned away; that which we’ve been regularly using stays, while that which we haven’t exercised is reduced. Thereafter, while our brains remain “plastic” and changeable, creating new habits becomes more difficult to do. All of which is to say, that if we train our brains in our youth in how to tackle adult tasks – how to plan, delay gratification, stick with a challenging task, work in a disciplined manner, etc. – performing these tasks in our thirties, forties, and beyond is much easier. If, on the other hand, our brains “set” before we’ve ever challenged them, picking up adult habits becomes a much more difficult endeavor.

Children need a gradual increase of REAL responsibilities. Millennials are especially bad for this. Only athletes and the elderly need the gym, a form of empty exercise, it does nothing for the calories burned. The rest of us should get enough exercise actually accomplishing something – doing chores, running errands, building something, volunteering, ANY-THING.

So, the second reason growing up is so hard to do, is that rather than gradually being initiated into the world of adults, we’re often expected to take on mature responsibilities all at once. Without a couple decades of training, this can feel like a shock to the system, which leaves you drowning in a world for which you haven’t been prepared.

Clinically, Asperger’s doesn’t even exist anymore. It was removed from the DSM-V and subsumed under the Other category. Most autistics are not geniuses (pop culture myth) and further, savants (what most people mean) don’t need to have a mental illness. Some are genetic, some are accidental. The autistic savants are easier to spot.

Universities filter for the precocious, and I believe this is a core reason we don’t see geniuses in academia anymore (plus the excessively long training times, stifling environment, low wages like a slave and the expectation of hoop jumping like a prize dog).

A lot of reddit morons go around bragging about their Asperger’s because they believe it equates to genius. Don’t bother uttering the words ‘false equivalence’.

Academic genius (Binet IQ) doesn’t necessarily mean jack either. It’s about what you do with it. If you sit on your arse doing nothing and playing video games, you might as well be retarded. Creative genius is what people praise, not a G score on a piece of paper. They see it as a license to be lazy. More fool them.

On the other hand, most people with Asperger’s syndrome are not geniuses (not even partial or potential geniuses), even when they have exceptionally high intelligence – because they lack the intuitive style of thinking which is vital for real creativity.

In my experience, real genius has a drive, a grit and resilience toward their subject/s.
Motivation is not a problem for them. Ever. As one told me: I have found my life’s calling, why would I want to do anything else?

Einstein wrote widely on intuition in science but don’t expect the supposed rationalists to listen from pride. They see it as a girly thing.

They are not anti-social either. The party-hard model of modernity is unnatural. They don’t buy into it. At most, they are asocial, they can do without, unless they’re selective. It’s a choice.

A genius is one whose main focus and motivation is not social, nor sexual; but instead abstract, asocial – whether artistic, scientific, technical, or whatever it may be.

…What differentiated the West from Russia, Lukacs identified, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from Lukacs’ standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution…..

Remember, they want us to feel hopeless.

…A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act….

Philosophy of science is very beautiful, if people paid attention to it.

In my considerations about genius, I have over the years realized one of the pillars of brilliance is associative horizon (the other are intelligence and conscientiousness). To explain what I mean by this, here is a somewhat structured list of its suspected features: ………….

Partially personality-based, but don’t hold that against him. Rigidity of worldview.

Summarized, the person with wide associative horizon is primarily living one’s own mind, not letting one’s mental state be determined or strongly affected by others. This is not a choice but a personality feature outside of one’s control. Such a person may be seen as unusual, isolated, original, bizarre, detached from emotion, cold.